daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,352
|
Post by daveg023 on Jan 8, 2020 23:11:02 GMT -5
I think this was a good result for us. At this point Butler, Nova, and Seton Hall and probably Marquette are set for the tournament. So we will be competing with Xavier, Creighton, and possibly PC (their non conference might make them have to go 12-6 though). So I think the better we compare to Xavier and Creighton the better our odds are of getting a bid. Agree with everything except Marquette... they are probably in the same boat as Xavier/Creighton/us right now (i.e. could play their way to a decent seed or could collapse their way out of the field). All 4 teams are in that 8-11 seed range right now. Fair. I think they are probably a bit ahead of us and the other two, given their tougher schedule and wins against Purdue and Nova, but definitely a gap between them and the Top 3. I think 6 from the BE is a safe bet and 7 is realistic. 8 would require a lot of things breaking the right way.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,038
|
Post by jwp91 on Jan 9, 2020 5:40:13 GMT -5
Seton Hall, especially when back to full strength, looks like a Final Four contender to me.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,352
|
Post by daveg023 on Jan 9, 2020 8:05:37 GMT -5
If we believe that Creighton and Xavier are our biggest competition for a bid, the good thing is one will be guaranteed to be 1-3 after this weekend since they play each other.
In the Ewing era though we are 1-3 vs Xavier, we’ve played them tougher than that indicates (lost in OT to then #6 ranked Xavier in Ewing’s first year). On the other hand we are 0-4 against Creighton and some of those games have been lopsided.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Jan 9, 2020 8:30:59 GMT -5
If we believe that Creighton and Xavier are our biggest competition for a bid, the good thing is one will be guaranteed to be 1-3 after this weekend since they play each other. In the Ewing era though we are 1-3 vs Xavier, we’ve played them tougher than that indicates (lost in OT to then #6 ranked Xavier in Ewing’s first year). On the other hand we are 0-4 against Creighton and some of those games have been lopsided. Stylistically Creighton is our worst matchup for defensive purposes. Yes I know they tear apart plenty of teams. But a pick and roll heavy offense with pick and pop action breaks what Ewing wants to do on defense. Last year Creighton blitzed Akinjo on pick and rolls and totally took us out of that part of the offense. I'm generally very impressed w McDermott game plans. Between Mosely fouling Blueitt for a 4 point play (I almost died) and being up 15 on them in the 1st half without Mac last year, I think we've been much more comfortable vs. Xavier. Agree w RockawayHoya that I'm not ready to declare Marquette above this fray. The Nova win was good but their non-con performance was actually a little soft. McEwen hasn't been what he was hyped to be. If he plays like he did vs. Nova consistently then yes they'll punch through into that top group.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 9, 2020 9:40:38 GMT -5
The league is crazy. Even if you subjectively think that some of these teams "aren't that good," it's hard to overemphasize how good in terms of metrics it is. Every single team but Provy is currently top 75 NET, which means that away games against all of those teams are Tier 1 games. And Provy is knocking on the door at 81. Butler, SH, and Nova all are top 30, so even home games with them are tier 1 (and Creighton is knocking on the door at 32).
Things still will change somewhat. But for us, that means that right now, of our 18 league games, 14 are Tier 1 games. And only Provy at home is as low as Tier 3. We're 2-3 right now against Tier 1 and 2-1 against Tier 2. Obviously, it's hard to handicap things fully this early in the year, but it's hard to see us not getting in with seven more wins, since that would give us at least five wins in Tier 1. There's a path to even getting in with six, depending on who we beat.
Bottom line: everyone chill out when when we lose some games. We're going to lose some more. Probably including another streak of two (maybe three or more!) in a row. Wouldn't surprise me if we look real bad losing some of those games. But if we can go, say, even 4-7 over our next 11 games, believe it or not, we'd be right in the mix with two weeks to go. We'd still need a couple more wins, for sure, but we'd be right in the mix.
Going 4-7 itself won't be easy, don't get me wrong. I'm not making a prediction here. I'm just saying that those writing off a tournament bid are, frankly, foolish, given what we've done already and the opportunities still remaining.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,762
|
Post by blueandgray on Jan 9, 2020 12:07:28 GMT -5
Really great breakdowns fellas....thank you!!
Whatever our tourney chances were going into the johnies game yesterday....it just felt like one we had to win. There was a clear path to 0-4 and that hole would have been hard to dig out of.
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Jan 9, 2020 12:43:30 GMT -5
Seton Hall, especially when back to full strength, looks like a Final Four contender to me. agreed; it is hard to believe they are not ranked.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 9, 2020 13:28:15 GMT -5
McDermott is a 5th-year senior after a taking a non injury redshirt his freshman year...
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,486
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 9, 2020 14:00:01 GMT -5
Seton Hall, especially when back to full strength, looks like a Final Four contender to me. agreed; it is hard to believe they are not ranked. Not hard to believe at all. There is only 1 team ranked in the top 25 with 4 losses. That is the Michigan Wolverines, whose losses are to Louisville, Illinois, Oregon and Michigan State. Among Michigan's wins are neutral court victories over #1 Gonzaga and UNC when they had Cole Anthony. Michigan has played one Big East team, Creighton, and beat the Bluejays by 10. Contrast that to Seton Hall, whose 4 losses are to Michigan State, Oregon, Iowa State (who lost to Kansas by 26 last night), and Rutgers. Seton Hall's signature win is over #12 Maryland.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
|
Post by SDHoya on Jan 9, 2020 14:19:54 GMT -5
agreed; it is hard to believe they are not ranked. Not hard to believe at all. There is only 1 team ranked in the top 25 with 4 losses. That is the Michigan Wolverines, whose losses are to Louisville, Illinois, Oregon and Michigan State. Among Michigan's wins are neutral court victories over #1 Gonzaga and UNC when they had Cole Anthony. Michigan has played one Big East team, Creighton, and beat the Bluejays by 10. Contrast that to Seton Hall, whose 4 losses are to Michigan State, Oregon, Iowa State (who lost to Kansas by 26 last night), and Rutgers. Seton Hall's signature win is over #12 Maryland. Seems to me that the comparison between Michigan and Hall is pretty close. Both have losses to Top-10ish teams in MSU and Oregon--so thats a wash. Seton Hall actually split with Iowa State (won on neutral floor, lost at ISU in game that Sandro got hurt)--and in any event a road loss to Iowa State is not all that different from Michigan's road loss to Illinois. Hall's loss to Rutgers was a true road game and came with both Sandro and Powell out (for most of the game)--and Rutgers looks like a legit tournament team (so not quite level with UM's loss to L'Ville, but neither a disaster). That leaves the comparison of the marquee wins--the committee might see the UM win over UNC as "marquee" because they still had Cole, but UNC was a bit suspect even with him (close-ish wins against so -so teams like Bama and ND, getting run off the floor by Ohio St) and they are a mess without him and seem likely to miss the tournament. UM's win against Gonzaga is on paper better than SH's win over UMD--but not by that much, and if the committee is going to take things into account like whether Cole Anthony was playing in the UM-UNC game, they may well take into account that SH won against UMD without both Sandro and Powell, which is pretty nuts. Relatedly, Hall has better NET (19 v 22) and Kenpom (14 v 19) rankings than UM. All this being said--and without taking anything away from UM's impressive start--I fully expect Hall to be ranked come next week.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Jan 9, 2020 14:24:22 GMT -5
I think at the end of the year where we finish in the standings will be the most important thing. The committee at the end of the day is not that smart and they throw everything out to get the proper mix of teams they want in. No matter what happens i cant see more than 7 BE teams getting in and I would surprised if more than 6. Look at what happened to Clemson and NC St. last year. They had incredible NET and advanced metrics. They were hurt by going 9-9 in the ACC which was 8/9. NC state won the 8/9 game and still didn't get in. Those are big ACC teams and they still fell victim to the #'s game. I can't imagine the BE gets any favors done.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,486
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 9, 2020 14:34:21 GMT -5
Not hard to believe at all. There is only 1 team ranked in the top 25 with 4 losses. That is the Michigan Wolverines, whose losses are to Louisville, Illinois, Oregon and Michigan State. Among Michigan's wins are neutral court victories over #1 Gonzaga and UNC when they had Cole Anthony. Michigan has played one Big East team, Creighton, and beat the Bluejays by 10. Contrast that to Seton Hall, whose 4 losses are to Michigan State, Oregon, Iowa State (who lost to Kansas by 26 last night), and Rutgers. Seton Hall's signature win is over #12 Maryland. Seems to me that the comparison between Michigan and Hall is pretty close. Both have losses to Top-10ish teams in MSU and Oregon--so thats a wash. Seton Hall actually split with Iowa State (won on neutral floor, lost at ISU in game that Sandro got hurt)--and in any event a road loss to Iowa State is not all that different from Michigan's road loss to Illinois. Hall's loss to Rutgers was a true road game and came with both Sandro and Powell out (for most of the game)--and Rutgers looks like a legit tournament team (so not quite level with UM's loss to L'Ville, but neither a disaster). That leaves the comparison of the marquee wins--the committee might see the UM win over UNC as "marquee" because they still had Cole, but UNC was a bit suspect even with him (close-ish wins against so -so teams like Bama and ND, getting run off the floor by Ohio St) and they are a mess without him and seem likely to miss the tournament. UM's win against Gonzaga is on paper better than SH's win over UMD--but not by that much, and if the committee is going to take things into account like whether Cole Anthony was playing in the UM-UNC game, they may well take into account that SH won against UMD without both Sandro and Powell, which is pretty nuts. Relatedly, Hall has better NET (19 v 22) and Kenpom (14 v 19) rankings than UM. All this being said--and without taking anything away from UM's impressive start--I fully expect Hall to be ranked come next week. Illinois is ranked #34 in the NET and Iowa State is ranked #89. I would not say those two losses are "not all that different" - losing to Iowa State is much worse. I do think Seton Hall has a chance to be ranked next week if they beat Marquette Saturday, clearly the Pirates are playing well. It's just not like there is some big anti-Big East or anti-Seton Hall conspiracy that they're not currently in the top 25.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,038
|
Post by jwp91 on Jan 9, 2020 16:07:07 GMT -5
Seems to me that the comparison between Michigan and Hall is pretty close. Both have losses to Top-10ish teams in MSU and Oregon--so thats a wash. Seton Hall actually split with Iowa State (won on neutral floor, lost at ISU in game that Sandro got hurt)--and in any event a road loss to Iowa State is not all that different from Michigan's road loss to Illinois. Hall's loss to Rutgers was a true road game and came with both Sandro and Powell out (for most of the game)--and Rutgers looks like a legit tournament team (so not quite level with UM's loss to L'Ville, but neither a disaster). That leaves the comparison of the marquee wins--the committee might see the UM win over UNC as "marquee" because they still had Cole, but UNC was a bit suspect even with him (close-ish wins against so -so teams like Bama and ND, getting run off the floor by Ohio St) and they are a mess without him and seem likely to miss the tournament. UM's win against Gonzaga is on paper better than SH's win over UMD--but not by that much, and if the committee is going to take things into account like whether Cole Anthony was playing in the UM-UNC game, they may well take into account that SH won against UMD without both Sandro and Powell, which is pretty nuts. Relatedly, Hall has better NET (19 v 22) and Kenpom (14 v 19) rankings than UM. All this being said--and without taking anything away from UM's impressive start--I fully expect Hall to be ranked come next week. Illinois is ranked #34 in the NET and Iowa State is ranked #89. I would not say those two losses are "not all that different" - losing to Iowa State is much worse. I do think Seton Hall has a chance to be ranked next week if they beat Marquette Saturday, clearly the Pirates are playing well. It's just not like there is some big anti-Big East or anti-Seton Hall conspiracy that they're not currently in the top 25. Yes, let's ignore the nuance that Seton Hall has played and learned to excel without its two best players. Players like Quincy Allen, Myles Cale, and Romano Gill are climbing up the learning curve rapidly. Meanwhile, they have one of the best offensive players in the country. I don't care about the records to date. I think come March if Seton Hall is healthy, they will go deep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 16:23:33 GMT -5
Seems to me that the comparison between Michigan and Hall is pretty close. Both have losses to Top-10ish teams in MSU and Oregon--so thats a wash. Seton Hall actually split with Iowa State (won on neutral floor, lost at ISU in game that Sandro got hurt)--and in any event a road loss to Iowa State is not all that different from Michigan's road loss to Illinois. Hall's loss to Rutgers was a true road game and came with both Sandro and Powell out (for most of the game)--and Rutgers looks like a legit tournament team (so not quite level with UM's loss to L'Ville, but neither a disaster). That leaves the comparison of the marquee wins--the committee might see the UM win over UNC as "marquee" because they still had Cole, but UNC was a bit suspect even with him (close-ish wins against so -so teams like Bama and ND, getting run off the floor by Ohio St) and they are a mess without him and seem likely to miss the tournament. UM's win against Gonzaga is on paper better than SH's win over UMD--but not by that much, and if the committee is going to take things into account like whether Cole Anthony was playing in the UM-UNC game, they may well take into account that SH won against UMD without both Sandro and Powell, which is pretty nuts. Relatedly, Hall has better NET (19 v 22) and Kenpom (14 v 19) rankings than UM. All this being said--and without taking anything away from UM's impressive start--I fully expect Hall to be ranked come next week. Illinois is ranked #34 in the NET and Iowa State is ranked #89. I would not say those two losses are "not all that different" - losing to Iowa State is much worse. I do think Seton Hall has a chance to be ranked next week if they beat Marquette Saturday, clearly the Pirates are playing well. It's just not like there is some big anti-Big East or anti-Seton Hall conspiracy that they're not currently in the top 25. Rankings are kind of whatever at this point in the season. I'm not going to quibble too much over SHU not being ranked. I will point out though that UNC's Net ranking is 106. Beating them w/Anthony is still a meh win. They're not good and probably part of the reason UM's Net is lower than SH's...
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 9, 2020 17:59:38 GMT -5
I think at the end of the year where we finish in the standings will be the most important thing. The committee at the end of the day is not that smart and they throw everything out to get the proper mix of teams they want in. No matter what happens i cant see more than 7 BE teams getting in and I would surprised if more than 6. Look at what happened to Clemson and NC St. last year. They had incredible NET and advanced metrics. They were hurt by going 9-9 in the ACC which was 8/9. NC state won the 8/9 game and still didn't get in. Those are big ACC teams and they still fell victim to the #'s game. I can't imagine the BE gets any favors done. NC State had a NCSOS of 340 and Clemson went 1-10 in Q1 games. That's less Q1 wins than the current Hoyas have so far this year. Committee has placed an emphasis of challenging youself in OOC and beating quality competition. The NET means less to them if it's inflated by beating a lot of bad teams convincingly, and that's a good thing. For all the griping by some about us not having beaten a slam-dunk NCAA team yet this season, our NCSOS is still impressive and doesn't figure to drop that much. That's a huge checkmark in our column that hopefully we can take advantage of come Selection Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 9, 2020 18:30:58 GMT -5
I think at the end of the year where we finish in the standings will be the most important thing. The committee at the end of the day is not that smart and they throw everything out to get the proper mix of teams they want in. No matter what happens i cant see more than 7 BE teams getting in and I would surprised if more than 6. Look at what happened to Clemson and NC St. last year. They had incredible NET and advanced metrics. They were hurt by going 9-9 in the ACC which was 8/9. NC state won the 8/9 game and still didn't get in. Those are big ACC teams and they still fell victim to the #'s game. I can't imagine the BE gets any favors done. NC State had a NCSOS of 340 and Clemson went 1-10 in Q1 games. That's less Q1 wins than the current Hoyas have so far this year. Committee has placed an emphasis of challenging youself in OOC and beating quality competition. The NET means less to them if it's inflated by beating a lot of bad teams convincingly, and that's a good thing. For all the griping by some about us not having beaten a slam-dunk NCAA team yet this season, our NCSOS is still impressive and doesn't figure to drop that much. That's a huge checkmark in our column that hopefully we can take advantage of come Selection Sunday. And NC State only had 3 Tier 1 wins I think. Now....it's not everything. We had 5 last year and didn't get in.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Jan 9, 2020 19:30:30 GMT -5
I think at the end of the year where we finish in the standings will be the most important thing. The committee at the end of the day is not that smart and they throw everything out to get the proper mix of teams they want in. No matter what happens i cant see more than 7 BE teams getting in and I would surprised if more than 6. Look at what happened to Clemson and NC St. last year. They had incredible NET and advanced metrics. They were hurt by going 9-9 in the ACC which was 8/9. NC state won the 8/9 game and still didn't get in. Those are big ACC teams and they still fell victim to the #'s game. I can't imagine the BE gets any favors done. NC State had a NCSOS of 340 and Clemson went 1-10 in Q1 games. That's less Q1 wins than the current Hoyas have so far this year. Committee has placed an emphasis of challenging youself in OOC and beating quality competition. The NET means less to them if it's inflated by beating a lot of bad teams convincingly, and that's a good thing. For all the griping by some about us not having beaten a slam-dunk NCAA team yet this season, our NCSOS is still impressive and doesn't figure to drop that much. That's a huge checkmark in our column that hopefully we can take advantage of come Selection Sunday. While I don't disagree with any of that I also think the committee changes their mind every year to fit what they need. If they truly are going to go on Quadrants it's really quite silly. I agree with the underlying principle but there are such wide ranges that it's really quite silly. I brought it up last year but one big thing the BE had going for it and it's shaping to look that way this year is that we are loaded up in the bottom of the quardrants. For instance the ACC had 1, 3, 7, 11, 16, and 22 in Q1 home games while the BE had 26 and 28. On the other hand for road games they had 33, 35, 42 while the BE had 53, 57, 64, 67, 69, 73. You really get screwed when you play the top 30 teams on the road since playing at #1 is that same as playing at #73. If you go strictly by quadrants you can see how that is a big F you to the ACC. I do agree with the NCSOS aspect of their thinking though. I do agree that Pat finally seemed to get the importance of it and its going to pay off. Our OOC schedule was very well designed. The BE didn't really pile up a lot of great wins in the OOC either but most did schedule well. i just have a hard time seeing the committee putting a whole conference full of 9-9 8-10 teams in. BE teams in. I do think if we get to 9-9 we are the right side of the ball though where a team like Depaul or Providence would not. I think the best case scenario for the BE getting the most teams in would be having SJU and Depaul losing most of the BE games to allow the other to pile up wins. I don't think that is going to happen though.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 9, 2020 20:04:27 GMT -5
NC State had a NCSOS of 340 and Clemson went 1-10 in Q1 games. That's less Q1 wins than the current Hoyas have so far this year. Committee has placed an emphasis of challenging youself in OOC and beating quality competition. The NET means less to them if it's inflated by beating a lot of bad teams convincingly, and that's a good thing. For all the griping by some about us not having beaten a slam-dunk NCAA team yet this season, our NCSOS is still impressive and doesn't figure to drop that much. That's a huge checkmark in our column that hopefully we can take advantage of come Selection Sunday. While I don't disagree with any of that I also think the committee changes their mind every year to fit what they need. If they truly are going to go on Quadrants it's really quite silly. I agree with the underlying principle but there are such wide ranges that it's really quite silly. I brought it up last year but one big thing the BE had going for it and it's shaping to look that way this year is that we are loaded up in the bottom of the quardrants. For instance the ACC had 1, 3, 7, 11, 16, and 22 in Q1 home games while the BE had 26 and 28. On the other hand for road games they had 33, 35, 42 while the BE had 53, 57, 64, 67, 69, 73. You really get screwed when you play the top 30 teams on the road since playing at #1 is that same as playing at #73. If you go strictly by quadrants you can see how that is a big F you to the ACC. I do agree with the NCSOS aspect of their thinking though. I do agree that Pat finally seemed to get the importance of it and its going to pay off. Our OOC schedule was very well designed. The BE didn't really pile up a lot of great wins in the OOC either but most did schedule well. i just have a hard time seeing the committee putting a whole conference full of 9-9 8-10 teams in. BE teams in. I do think if we get to 9-9 we are the right side of the ball though where a team like Depaul or Providence would not. I think the best case scenario for the BE getting the most teams in would be having SJU and Depaul losing most of the BE games to allow the other to pile up wins. I don't think that is going to happen though. In order to make the tournament, you have to beat tournament teams. Neither of those teams did. They didn't deserve to get in. You want to make the tournament? Play a tough schedule and beat good teams. Belmont, UNCG and Lipscomb were three mid majors who were significantly better teams and only 1 of them got in. Better eye test, better Non con schedule, some case better numbers and better wins. I still think who you beat, being quality opponents in the non conference and the conference is really important. Clemson's one q1 win was over a Virginia Tech team without their starting PG Justin Robinson. They beat up on the Pitt's, Georgia Techs and Wake Forests of the world. Those teams didn't play postseason basketball. NC State beat an Auburn team who wasn't themselves until February and that's really it. I'd rather watch a more talented mid major team play over power teams who had all the opportunities to beat competition and consistently failed play. Those mid major teams passed the eye test and were objectively better, hence the Lipscomb win at NC State in the NIT with 44 from current Wizard Garrison Matthews. If you can't beat good teams, especially with ample opportunities, you don't deserve to make it. If Clemson was 3-8 in q1 games, which is still very bad, they'd probably have made the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 10, 2020 11:12:31 GMT -5
The other major factor is the BET. Because the Big East is so strong, IF we get 2 BET wins (or one that's not on Wednesday), it pretty much guarantees we are beating a high quality team. So I could see a path where we go 8-10 in the Big East, but then get a good win in the BET and make it.
Keep in mind back in 2014, we were in the last 4 out with an 8-10 record, when we lost to DePaul in the BET. Had we beat DePaul, we might have even made it, and certainly two BET wins that year would have been enough.
It's pretty hard to see 7-11 making the tournament, barring a BET final run (obviously if we won, it wouldn't matter), but the bubble is always weaker than it often seems it will be.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,604
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 10, 2020 19:29:06 GMT -5
|
|